So, the US army flew over Baghdad and shot down two reporters from the news agency Reuters and other innocent civilians, along with injuring two children. They thought the reporters' cameras were weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded#

Static_Martyr

04-05-2010, 08:25 PM

After reading the comments and watching the video a couple of times, it seems that there are parts which can be debated.....but there was one thing that I found particularly disturbing, and that was the guy who was muttering, "come on, all you have to do is pick up a gun." That hit me right away as really fucked up --- he's actually hoping the guy will pick up a gun, just so he can shoot him to death and have a justification.

One of the reasons why I'm scared shitless to join the army. If that's the kind of person that war turns you into....yikes. I don't care how traumatic it was, I could never make myself *hope* for a chance to kill someone who's been wounded and is crawling away for their life. It's like shooting someone in the back while they're trying to run away, only like, 1000 times worse.

ad8

04-06-2010, 11:22 AM

This is really fucked up. Part of why I don't like the (not just the american) army at all. Those people have to get punished.

RageAndLov

04-06-2010, 12:28 PM

This is really fucked up. Part of why I don't like the (not just the american) army at all. Those people have to get punished.

I hope they do. Whether it is war or not, that is a criminal act. The soldiers act like they play an FPS game sitting in the chopper.

Static_Martyr

04-06-2010, 01:48 PM

Also....what tends to piss me off is hearing people say, "War is hell, bad stuff happens, get over it." As if that were some excuse to just do any damn thing you want in a warzone....as if the fact that war sucks is somehow a justification for deliberately and unnecessarily making things worse by committing stupid atrocities for childish reasons.

jacknife737

04-06-2010, 04:22 PM

I really hate to appear to play devils advocate here guys, but nothing is ever black and white.

I mean the US military/government's position as far as i can ascertain is that some of the individuals killed were impeded with insurgents. Now i'm not saying this is true, but i won't pass final judgement until i know all the facts.

Also, again, don't want to come off as cynical or uncaring, but i'm somewhat surprised at the amount of attention this story has received. I mean, i'm not saying that this isn't terrible/horrific/ect, but this isn't the first time that civilians were killed in Iraq, and it probably won't be the last. Outside of the alleged "cover up" (and let's face it, the army is just playing the public relations game here) i don't really see how this is unique. And i'm not saying that such things shouldn't be reported by the media at all but given the past seven or so years of war in the middle east, is this really surprising?

RageAndLov

04-07-2010, 12:55 AM

I really hate to appear to play devils advocate here guys, but nothing is ever black and white.

I mean the US military/government's position as far as i can ascertain is that some of the individuals killed were impeded with insurgents. Now i'm not saying this is true, but i won't pass final judgement until i know all the facts.

Also, again, don't want to come off as cynical or uncaring, but i'm somewhat surprised at the amount of attention this story has received. I mean, i'm not saying that this isn't terrible/horrific/ect, but this isn't the first time that civilians were killed in Iraq, and it probably won't be the last. Outside of the alleged "cover up" (and let's face it, the army is just playing the public relations game here) i don't really see how this is unique. And i'm not saying that such things shouldn't be reported by the media at all but given the past seven or so years of war in the middle east, is this really surprising?

How can you defend civilians trying to save the lives of that dying reporter? They couldn't possible be a threat as the gunman was saying "Come on. All you've got to do is to pick up a weapon".
And why it gets a lot of attention? Two reasons really. The soldiers were doing a criminal act by killing innocent people, and the military was trying to cover it all up. If the military would come out right after the incident and apologise for the horrible actions and dealing with whoever was responsible for the killing, then the story would be something else.

mario_spaghettio

04-07-2010, 07:17 PM

Nobody will be or should be punished. ROE were followed. This was a tragic mistake, not a criminal act. The soldiers thought the people on the ground had RPGs and other large weaponry. Were they supposed to wait to have the helicopter shot down?

Harleyquiiinn

04-08-2010, 12:05 AM

Nobody will be or should be punished. ROE were followed. This was a tragic mistake, not a criminal act. The soldiers thought the people on the ground had RPGs and other large weaponry. Were they supposed to wait to have the helicopter shot down?

Nobody will be or should be punished. ROE were followed. This was a tragic mistake, not a criminal act. The soldiers thought the people on the ground had RPGs and other large weaponry. Were they supposed to wait to have the helicopter shot down?

I'd like to believe that. But then, if they did nothing wrong, then there shouldn't be any need to lie about what happened in the official report.

Harleyquiiinn

04-08-2010, 04:18 AM

lol, NOT punishing them is having a really bad opinion of militaries...

You would think that trained guys could make the difference between a camera and an AK47, a kid and an evil terrorist and a dangerous or calm situation... Or at least that they would try to make sure of a situation before actually shooting to kill...

T-6005

04-08-2010, 06:55 AM

There is something to be said about the fact that the nature of warfare has changed in the past century. Since mass production of weapons and industrialization became big things connected to the military-industrial complex, the way big nations fight has shifted tremendously. With the technological revolution - and the advent of air travel, which is probably the single biggest shift - demarcated lines of warfare have ceased to exist, and civilians casualties have exploded, starting with about World War II.

It might not seem connected, but the problem is that training at the basic level has yet to encompass the necessities of fighting in the plethora of new environments, simply because they haven't been around that long. Hell, most of the serious work done around the world is achieved by Private Military Firms anyhow - as is a large part of what is done in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's conducted by private individuals who need to be highly trained before they are hired and put into the field. Contrast this with the training your average soldier receives and no doubt you'll find a massive gap.

I'm not saying excuse soldiers for killing civilians - just that effective methods of dealing with the realities of this new form of warfare have been long overdue in coming because this way of fighting is only the most recent shift of a change in warfare which started in the 1930s. If you can find it, I'd recommend The Profession of Arms, a 1983 documentary by Gwynne Dyer. It's made in the 80s, so it's hardly a great-looking video, but it's quite interesting in singling out the trend between industrial warfare and civilian deaths.